Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, among the world’s 10 wealthiest couples, with a net worth of $55.2 billion, have announced a $3 billion effort to accelerate scientific research with the ambitious goal of “curing all disease in our children’s lifetime.” They will be giving away 99 percent of their Facebook shares to “advance human potential and promote equality for all children in the next generation.”
I don’t want to rain on their parade or comment on the ingratiating and grovelling article that drew my attention to this development, but my personal belief is that there are other, greater, priorities. Just two such issues are global climate change, which, if not slowed or reversed will claim millions of lives, young and old; and the huge projected growth in population to over 11 billion (estimated) in a world where food will in any case be in short supply and clean water be a precious resource. In the case of the population issue, most people are dismissive; others blitz you in pseudo science to “prove” you can’t possibly be right and that excess growth in population is a non-issue (tell that to the people living along the sewer that is now the Ganges – the water is already toxic and is being used to irrigate crops along its length). Strange how human beings can be in denial about the most weighty and threatening things in their lives.
If the Zuckerbergs really want to do something useful and pressing in the health arena they should focus on a category that is challenging but soluble, namely, the diseases of the brain. Disorders such as schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s and autism cause untold misery, but we still struggle to understand their causes: more research could deliver much-needed breakthroughs, leading to better treatments and even cures. In this field, $3bn could make a real difference. As it is $3bn is a drop in a bucket, dwarfed by any number of funding sources for health. (Matt Ridley, The Times)
I’ve never heard an argument against funding cures to diseases, but to be honest, it certainly has its merits. I agree that climate change and overpopulation (or at the very least overconsumption) are greater problems.
But if you are living in a developing country, with a higher prevalence of HIV, and therefore less immunity to disease, it may seem very different. Take for instance Africa, with the world’s fastest growing population of any continent. Historically, Africa has suffered from underpopulation and the resultant vulnerability to the environment and natural disaster. African culture has also viewed large families as a sign of prosperity- not least because of the free labour. Many African leaders are arguing that it is the West’s overconsumption which is causing climate change, not Africa’s ‘overpopulation’ or disease. To use a Biblical phrase, maybe we should take the plank out of our own eyes before taking the speck out of the Africans’.